After Steve Johnson wrapped up his first six months at the helm of USA Cycling, we sent VeloNews.com's Jason Sumner to Colorado Springs to meet with the national governing body's newest chief executive officer and review the past few months and the organization's plans for the future.We posted the first part of the full interview on Wednesday. We now offer the second half of a wide-ranging interview with the head of USA Cycling.

---

VeloNews: Can you envision a day when there is a ProTour event in the United States? And if so what do you think it’s going to take to make that happen? And when do you see it happening?Steve Johnson: I definitely envision the day and I look forward to it. What it will take to make it happen I don’t think is clear. I do think that our philosophy of exporting Americans to the ProTour teams is part of that. I think the fact that the ProTour teams and international cycling sponsors have an interest in this country and the market in this country represents is also a large part of that. I think hosting world class events is absolutely critical.

I know that the Tour of California and the Tour of Georgia are at a level that is world class, and they are at a level that would be legitimate contenders for a ProTour calendar event. The question is how do we continue to grow the interest, in what has been traditionally a western European sport, in this country. I think we do it by continuing to grow the sport here domestically. Make sure that the professional side grows. To make sure Americans have a predominant role in international cycling. If you look right now at number of cyclists we are probably in the same level as the Australians, but we are one of the top two or three countries on the ProTour. We do quite well and I think that is going to continue to influence the decision making process.

VN: So what exactly do you do on your end to make an American ProTour event happen?SJ: We hard sell all the time. Every chance I get. Usually they are conversations over a beer, just discussions about the opportunities for the sport in general to engage this market. I think that it’s clear that cycling has grown out of what was once a Western European perspective. It is truly an international sport and I think America has embraced it. I think the opportunities for the highest level of racing in this country have never been greater. I tell that story to anyone who will listen.

VN: So what does the UCI say when you tell that storySJ: Well, it hasn’t been dismissed. I think it is on the docket for future discussion.

VN: So if you were going to guess as to when we were going to see a ProTour event in the United States, what’s your guess?SJ: Boy, I think legitimately in the next four years.

VN: Next subject. What do you consider USA Cycling’s role to be in the anti-doping movement?SJ: Obviously we support it. We have a zero tolerance policy. The way anti-doping is structured in this country, we are not the organization that adjudicates anything. We do enforce any penalties that are handed down as a result of doping sanctions. We are an Olympic-movement family member. As a result we adhere to the WADA code. USADA is the designated anti-doping agency in the United States. So as you know per regulations any doping issues are immediately handed to USADA.

VN: But beyond the basic hierarchy of how individual cases are handled, what is your role as say an educator?SJ: We engage with USADA to bring their staff members to our camps, so we try to get a very strong anti-doping message to our athletes as early as possible. We also have a very strong code of ethics and code of conduct that all of athletes sign. It requires them to notify us even if they know someone else did something. Not just if they themselves are doing it. We definitely try to get that message to everybody. I think it’s very important. Education is a big part of the effort to control doping in sport. We are absolutely committed to it, as is USADA and the USOC.

VN: Role play with me. I am the father of a 18-year-old kid who has shown some talent on the bike, but I have my eyes open. I read the newspapers and I see what is going on in the professional cycling world, especially this summer. So I come to you and say Steve tell me why I should want my kid to get into this sport? Why shouldn’t I discourage him?SJ: That question is not as abstract as you might think. I have heard it before. It gets back to a bigger issue of cheating. I think that whenever the stakes are high the temptation to cheat is going to be high. From my previous life as a college professor, people will cheat on ACTs, SATs, college entrance exams, chemistry 101 finals. As a result of that we create a structure. You take a test with a proctor in the room walking down the aisles or an instructor in the front of the room. Why do you do that? Because you might cheat.

But because people cheat we don’t throw the whole educational institution under the bus. We just adapt to it. We try to create a system that tries to minimize the impact and prevent people from cheating. If we catch them, we’ll penalize them in some way. Doping is not just a cycling issue. It’s a professional sports issue across the board. And the reason it is is that the stakes are so high. I think clearly that the stakes in cycling are just as high. You have multi-million dollar salaries, endorsement opportunities. When the stakes are high people are going to cheat.

Cycling unlike a lot of other professional sports has really a zero-tolerance policy. It’s got one of the most robust processes in all of professional sports. A first offense is basically a four-year exclusion from top-level cycling. Baseball is 15 games. It’s very different. As a result I would tell a parent that the opportunities are great.

People are going to cheat. We are going to catch them. If you have the talent, I would encourage them to pursue it.

VN: Mountain bike racing had a huge crescendo in the 1990s but has obviously fallen off. Do you see those days returning or was mountain biking artificially inflated and has now settled into its rightful place in the professional sports landscape?SJ: I think the original boom of mountain biking was basically one specific mountain bike venue – cross-country mountain biking. I think what has happened today is that mountain biking has taken on a lot of different faces and has taken on a lot of different venues: gravity, free ride, marathons, 24 hours. So what was just kind of a traditional two-hour cross-country race has turned into a lot of different things.

One of the things this organization has to do and wants to do is and is going to do is take a hard look at what else is going on in mountain biking outside of just the Olympic venue – the cross-country side – and try to engage that side of the sport and those participants. There is no reason that we can’t be relevant to anyone who rides a mountain bike at any venue.

I would like to make sure to address their needs as well. I just came back from a weekend mountain bike camp in Keystone where I had the opportunity to ride a full-blown 8-inch travel mountain bike and I had a blast.

On the gravity side there are some issues with regard to liability. California is struggling with that and a lot of the ski resorts are shutting down downhill trails. But I think Colorado is really embracing it. Keystone has a world-class downhill trail system and they want to build more.

So I think we need to work within the industry. Manage the liability side of the sport. But really to embrace all the different types of mountain bike competition is going to be critical in growing the mountain bike membership on the competitive side. We are going to make some changes in the way we look at our calendar and the kinds of venues that we engage on our calendar and I think we can create opportunities for members to participate in a variety of different kinds of mountain bike activities.

VN: The NORBA National Championships Series was once a prize property of USA Cycling. Today the series is clearly not what it once was. At the same time there are a lot of regional mountain bike events that are healthy and growing. Why the disparity and is there some sort of light at the end of the tunnel for the NORBA series.SJ: I agree that there are a lot of great regional events. I have the same question: Why aren’t they on what you might call a national mountain bike calendar?

I think you will see coming out of this office in the next couple of months some real dramatic changes regarding how we do our mountain bike calendar. I’m not ready to talk about it yet, but we ask ourselves the same question. The NORBA board has asked themselves the same question.

The NCS was the pride and joy of this organization in the late 1990s, and I think it served its purpose well. But again, given the evolution of mountain biking and the fact that it has grown into these different kinds of sports, you see what’s left of the national series is just cross-country focused with traditional gravity. What I think it is going to take to grow the competition side of the sport is to embrace these other kinds of competition and to look at a calendar that really accommodates venues based on how well they suit different kinds of activities.

Is it right to shoehorn gravity and cross-country into every single venue? Obviously, there are some world-class downhill venues and some world-class cross-country venues. Sometimes they line up and sometime they don’t. In the past we required a venue that could host everything, but now even the UCI is moving away from that in World Cups.

VN: Is one of the problems that USA Cycling has been slow to react to the changes in the sport?SJ: I think we were slow. We tend as an organization to be a little bit myopic. We focus on the Olympic pipeline, which is part of our obligation. We are on the USOC campus and we will always have the obligation to field hopefully world-class Olympic teams.

That said, the other part of our mission is to grow the sport and I am committed to that. I would like to be part of the growth of the sports that we are responsible for, and mountain biking is certainly one of those. I am convinced that there are a lot of people riding mountain bikes that are not riding them at our national mountain bike series races and we need to fix that.

VN: The 2004 Olympics tale was fairly well documented: the chase for UCI points, only one woman at the start line and Alison Dunlap not at the start line. Tell me why that is not going to happen in 2008?SJ: We started behind the eight ball due to some staff changes, so we were slow to acknowledge and understand what was going to be required to qualify the start positions and the individuals.

We are obviously well ahead of that this year. We made some changes in terms of stipends to riders to make sure they are interested in and focused on the mountain bike World Cups. We have made big strides on UCI races in this country, so we have a full calendar of UCI races on American soil for next year. That will make it easier for riders to get UCI points.

You have already seen the effect of those two efforts in terms of our current mountain bike standings. Look at the men’s side and we would qualify three if we stayed at the same level. On the women’s side we would get two. That’s a full team based on the nation ranking. I expect that to continue. I’ve had conversations with most of the athletes and they are definitely going to focus on international racing.

Look at the success we came back from the world championships with. We had our best performance in over a decade on the men’s side, and we continue to get solid performances on the women’s side, so I think it is paying off.

VN: An ACA license for road, mountain bike and cyclo-cross is $30. OBRA's is similar. A USAC license for road is $60, plus another $60 for mountain biking. Why such a big difference?SJ: We are a national organization so obviously we have a responsibility to the entire nation. We provide a much higher level of service than those organizations do. Our insurance package is second to none, and basically dwarfs the insurance provided by those organizations. They under-insure. That’s well known.

We return a half million dollars to the local associations and promoters on the mountain bike side. So we give money back to them. We are really interested in developing a national structure and to growing the sport.

That said, I don’t have any personal interest in going after or undermining the efforts of OBRA or ACA. I think that if they are representing the needs of their local membership in terms of racing and safety, that’s great. They use our rules. There are a lot of reasons they can sell a license for $30. We created the infrastructure for the sport. It’s there so all you have to do is take advantage of it. It’s a little bit like your neighbor who decides that he doesn’t want to pay taxes. The kids are grown up and out of the house, so why should he pay the school tax or the road tax?

The reality is that there is a certain amount of infrastructure necessary to sustain the sport in the country and we do that. Other organizations are able to take advantage of our infrastructure, use our rulebook, use our officials. That’s what they have chosen to do. But I will say that based on my experiences that OBRA in particular and ACA that they do a wonderful job of promoting local bike racing. If they are serving the needs of their local constituents then that’s fine.

VN: Are you still the executive director of the Development Foundation?SJ: No. That was a requirement from the board when I took this position. I think there was still the perception of the potential conflict between the group of donors that make up the Champions Club and also the board of directors. So to eliminate both the appearance and any actual potential conflict, that was their request. Both boards supported that.

VN: Okay, speaking of conflicts of interest, Jim Ochowicz is the board president of USA Cycling. In the past he has worked as a consultant for Phonak. Did you see a potential conflict of interest there?SJ: Again, all boards have conflicts of interest. All board members have potential conflicts of interest. What we try to do is declare those and you manage around them. When an issue comes up that might fall into the area that your conflict covers, then you should abstain from conversation. We do that all the time. All boards do that. Again, it’s not improper to have a conflict of interest. It’s just necessary to declare that and to manage it. We are a small industry. Everybody who is on our board, with the exception of the foundation guys, have some role in the cycling industry that could be perceived as, or actually be, a conflict of interest. We work pretty hard to manage that.

VN: Okay, tough question time. After he was terminated, your predecessor Gerard Bisceglia said he felt a small group of individuals have come in and taken over USA Cycling. What’s your response to that statement?SJ: I disagree. I think I’ve said this before. We are not an organization of shareholders, we are an organization of stakeholders. It’s true that there are a small number of people that have a large stake in cycling as an industry and as a sport. He may have been referring to USPro. I’ve heard that argument raised in respect to them before. But again if they represent 15-plus trade teams that pump millions of dollars, 10s of millions, even 100s of millions, into the sport. They also represent the promoters of some remarkable events in this country that I think have done as mush as or more to grow the sport nationally than any association.

So the reality is that if you look at the Tour of California, Tour of Georgia, Philly, Greenville; all of these pump millions of dollars into the sport, so at the end of the day they become very important to helping us grow the sport. So as stakeholders I think they have and deserve a fair amount of representation.

VN: Did you agree with Gerard’s termination?SJ: It was a board issue. I have no comment one way or the other. Gerard was great guy, a very interesting, unique individual. I learned a lot from him. I enjoyed working with him.

VN: You spoke out against the L'Equipe report that said Lance Armstrong used EPO to win the 1999 Tour de France. Why? SJ: I don’t think we should adjudicate doping cases in the press. We have a world organization that defines anti-doping specimen collection, management, analysis and the subsequent adjudication process when necessary. That’s been accepted by nations around the world. We adhere to that. That’s how we handle doping. What doesn’t make any sense is to try to circumvent that process in the press. It’s absolutely nonsensical from my position. There is nothing we as an organization can do as a result of that. We adhere to the WADA code and USADA manages doping cases in our behalf. It’s just pointless.

VN: Where do you want to see USA Cycling in five years and what’s it going to take to get there?SJ: I go back to my earlier statements about trying to make us more relevant to the general cycling population. We have been working hard this summer already to try to strategize and plan, and I would like to do several things in the next couple years that I think will ultimately help us grow our membership substantially.

In five years I would like to see us at 150,000 members instead of the 58,000 members we have now. We want to do that by creating an opportunity to engage the average recreational, the commuter cyclist, the person who is interested in cycling for fitness and health, by providing information on our website that could be useful to them. By providing a portal to information to other websites that could be useful to them, and by growing the value of our license.

You say $60 is more than OBRA charges or ACA, but we provide a lot of value for that license and I want to provide more. Traditionally we’ve offered up the explanation of what do I get for my $60, that’s the right to race your bike and a couple of bike coupons. I think we can answer that question much more obviously by adding to that portfolio of affinity programs and discounts and shared opportunities.

I think the bicycle industry is the place to help us do that. I think that if you look at what people who ride a bike want, it’s bike stuff. I would really like be able to provide everything a cyclist needs. We have already moved aggressively on the insurance, so we can provide health insurance and accident insurance at very low cost because we discovered that some of our members don’t have insurance. We think it is important that they do.

So we are going to continue to try to develop those kinds of programs and those kinds of benefits, and ultimately add more value to the license.

VN: Okay the floor is yours. Is there something you feel that I am missing here, something that you would like to address.SJ: Well we covered a lot, but again I do feel that this is a remarkable time for the sport in this country and I would really hope that everyone involved, this organization, the media, the advocacy groups, all rally around the opportunity. I am really looking forward to discussions with everybody in the industry to talk about how to continue to grow it, and make the dream of a bicycling nation a reality. I think the time of the automobile is rapidly drawing to a close, and I see the bike as a wonderful vehicle for transportation, health and fitness, and everything else that is wrong with America.